in which he lies about his first one(among other things). One of the responses, this one from Tom Kratman:
@ Bateman, since my reply will not post.
It is said of
Washington that he could not tell a lie. How odd then that you should
quote him after lately claiming that your previous article was about
getting weapons from the hands of criminals,
when in that article you made it plain it was about getting weapons
from the hands of citizens. Have you no shame? I mean, obviously you
lack reason. And, given that you think your legal judgment is superior
to the Supreme Court’s, patently you lack humility. But have you no
Do you think that in Washington's letter to the New York
Legislature - from which, whether you know it or not, you quoted - that
he intended that soldiers should be as unruly as civilians? That they
should question legitimate orders? That they should vote on which
orders they will obey and which they won’t? That they should mutiny?
In what senses, then, did he mean they remained citizens? Were you a
true historian you might have spared yourself some embarrassment in
noting that he referred to their coming status after the war, and not
their right to act as citizens while serving. Do you imagine that
Washington intended that the soldiers vote on crossing the Delaware?
Then what do you imagine he meant? Oh, please come up with something;
your interpretation of the second amendment just left us all panting for
more ahistorical nonsense.
You are a commissioned officer. You
give up certain rights as a matter of law: see, eg, Art 88, UCMJ. This
is not compatible with normal citizenship, but is necessary to good
order, discipline, and trust in the armed forces. Were you not aware of
this? You also give up certain things as a matter of custom and common
sense. Among these, you a) should not have lied about the gravamen of
your previous essay, as you have. In doing so you have thereby
demonstrated vast lack of integrity, also incompatible with service as
an officer. Moreover, b) you should keep your nose out of highly
charged political questions that tend to raise distrust of the armed
forces and especially of the only one with the power to actually launch a
coup, the Army.
To quote from his first article, which he claims was about a 'rational, peaceful, non-confiscatory way of removing guns from the hands of criminals':
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is
because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes.
Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited.
When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police
department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical
significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction
weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss
off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what
they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of
weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs -- or the jobs of
some other cops -- harder.)
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it
will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of
ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.)
Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
5. We will initiate a nationwide "buy-back" program, effective
immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back
program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value
the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third
year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns
can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next
6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who
create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be
bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.
Bateman, you're a liar and a disgrace to that uniform. And if there's not I'm wondering why there's not a UCMJ investigation going on about you.
I should note that he accuses the NRA of inciting death threats: Personally, I think a little bit less of an organization like the NRA,
which incites their members to threaten rape and murder and the
abduction of babies.
Were I in the NRA organization I'd have the lawyers looking into this right now. "Mr. Bateman, I am G. Esquire Nightmare, attorney for the NRA. You have accused my clients of inciting death threats. Let's see your proof. NOW."